I coined this term a few weeks back in the Where are the UFOz thred in the Skeptic's Society Forum. I believ it providez a useful distinction from 'explanation'.

A big problem I see all the time with skeptics iz that they immediately and uncriticly aksept any theory that soundz like sumthing normal to cover a UFO siting or other 'supernatural' occurans. They discount or ignore important detailz in the witness testimony that dont fit this theory and often fail to see internal lojikl contradictionz.

If your main goal az a skeptic iz to keep your world simple and safe, you can relax and soak up the opinionz uv the True SkepticTM professionalz without wasting your own time digging into a story. They'v dun the work alredy. No need to repeat it.

The risk iz that they are rong and you will look like a fool if this iz revealed. Whoever it wuz you were arguing with will hav a jiganticI TOLD YOU SO card to wip out in all future debates.

Not only are you risking your own credibility, you will degrade the credibility uv everybody who claimz to be siens oriented, skeptical uv the supernatural, well educated, or above averaj IQ and well informed. And even worse, you hav passed that chunk uv credibility you broke off over to the Woo side. Every chowderhed and huckster can now say 'dont forget that time siens got it rong so believ me now'.